Murigappa Vs. Channappa

- industrial disputes act, 1947 [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 25-f: [subhash b. adi, j] retrenchment employment of a workman in respect of non-sanctioned post - claim of the workman/respondents that he has worked for 240 days of continuous service in a year termination award for reinstatement held, having found that the engagement of the respondent in respect f a particular project and against the non-sanctioned post, there is no provision for continuing the workman in a post, which is not sanctioned and continuing the person in respect of a non-sanctioned post amounts to continuation in a post which is not in existence, would be illegal and amount to creating the post without cadre strength. on facts, held, in the present case the workman has proved that he has worked 240 days in a year and the refusal of work would amounts to retrenchment. however, in view of the project being completed and there is already a surplus staff of 1163 and also the post being a non-sanctioned post, continuing the respondent in service or reinstating the respondent would be wholly illegal. in the circumstances, it is just and proper to grant the relief of compensation of rs.50,000/- in place of reinstatement. - appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate courts appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the high court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit......petit-ion has been preferred.3. in my opinion, this revision petition filed under s. 115 of c. p. c. is not maintainable. if the trial court has upheld the objections on an erroneous view of law, the appellate court can correct it and additional evidence can be adduced. secondly, every order made by the trial court in the course of trial is not open to revision under s. 115 of the c. p c. section 115 of the c. p. c. reads as follows:'115. revision- the high court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such high court and in which no. appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate courts appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the high court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit.' 4. it is not shown how this is a case 'decided' by a court subordinate to the high court in order to enable this court to invoke its jurisdiction under s. 115 of the c. p, c. in baldevadas shivlal v. filmistan distributors (india) private limited, : [1970]1scr435 the supreme court has laid down that the 'every order of the court in the course of a suit does not amount to a case decided within the meaning of s. 115, c p. c by overruling an objection to a question put to witness and allowing the question to be put, no case is 'decided'. the instant case is a converse one where an objection is upheld. when the trial judge allows an objection and disallows a question put to the witness or when he overrule- an objection and allows the question to the witness, it cannot be said that the case is 'decided' within the meaning of s. 115, of the c. p. c. therefore, the revision petition under s 115, c. p. c. is not maintainable. accordingly this revision petition is dismissed but without costs.5. revision dismissed.